How do you feel about X in your country?

[DonFerrari]

Nymeria said:

DonFerrari said:

1 - We have available data on the expenditure, not on the cost structure (those aren't released data) to affirm the origin of the higher cost on USA healthcare.

Sure private company are corrupt, but if they don't have the government to protect they or to pay for politicians to help keep high margin, the price of their products go down hard.

2 - I'm not talking about legal drugs, I'm talking about USA fighting against Drugsm as they fought against alcohol before... their total incapacity to do that would lead credentials to their inability to prevent guns on the US. 

1 - Simply put 1:1 we pay more for everything. Something as simple as a hospital gown or an IV is far more expensive in the US than other countries. We do this because we have a weaker bargaining position.

Which is why I want money out of politics. I want the state to answer to the people, not the powerful.

2 - Legal opioids lead to spikes in heroine use in communities.  We didn't have the level of heroine use a decade ago, pretty clear correlation.  I stated we focus way too much on illegal cannabis, making it legal would shift focus to cocaine or meth which create real problems. I also stated rehabilitation over punishment because our failure means we should change tactics as continuing to do so and expecting different results is insanity.

1 - I certainly believe that you pay more. It may be from weaker bargain position or from government regulation, taxes, excess of demand, warranted demand, protection for doctors who can request excessive wages, insurance for bad practice due to crazy sues, etc.

But as I said. If one could opt out to not pay taxes that cover the public health if he so decides that would already make me a happy kupo.

2 - You are not picking the point. I'm not talking about the health problems due to drugs. I'm saying that if USA can't prevent cannabis, heroine, cocaine and the other dozen of illegal drugs to enter the country or to be produced locally how do you think it would be able to control guns entering or being sold illegally?

palou said:

DonFerrari said:

The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.

You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.

I think we just seem to have a very different level of trust in the institutions that represent us.

 

My point was, *if* it's working correctly, a single-payer system should most certainly drive down medical prices by a considerable amount. So it would certainly be a valid explanation for the price differential.

No one in a powerful position should be trusted, simple as that. You may accept it, but you also need to keep vigilant and not trust of their motives.

"if working well" a company would be more profitable without supervisors, managers, CEO, etc because it would save on wages, but it don't work like that. Similar to X+Y with two positive numbers won't ever be lower than X.